0. Let me speak in the hypothetical. A fictional caste-like system hypothetically makes sense, provided that one can look at the matter from a purely metaphysical (not from a political, historical, cultural, or empirical) point of view. Here’s how:

1. In lieu of believing that all beings are “created equal,” we should take stock of some simple, observable facts: humans, it’s obvious, come in many shapes and sizes; they have greater and lesser aptitudes; their dispositions differ considerably as do the virtues they embody and the skills at which they excel. Once we accept human diversity and take it seriously, we might find that there’s a natural metaphysical sorting that takes place. (How that sorting would take place, in practice, is anybody’s guess.)

2. The proposal that a fictional caste system makes is–again, only speaking from a metaphysical point of view, not from a historical, cultural, political, or economic standpoint–very sensible. It’s that humans, through proclivities, aptitudes, skills, and virtues would ultimately “sort themselves” into four types: spiritual types, leadership types, enterprising types, and server types. For the sake of argument, presume that these types are disjunct, though we’d expect, in actual social life, certain admixtures as well.

3. We could even now diverge from the Hindu account for a moment. That account–with which I’m in full agreement–would say that the ultimate aim of life is moksha, or full liberation from suffering. Hence, it would “grade” the above types from to those who are closest to moksha (spiritual types, or brahmins) to those who are farthest away from moksha (server types). We needn’t do so in Pt. 3. Instead, we could, in theory, imagine all sorts of societies springing up: those that are anchored in religio (brahmins); those that privilege political leaders (kshatriyas); those that privilege enterprisingness (vaishyas); those that highlight the life of laborers (shudras). The first would look like a religious culture (e.g., the Indus Valley); the second would resemble a deeply political culture (e.g., classical Athens); the third to a fair degree would be akin to modern Western society; the fourth might very well turn into full-blown communism whose major tenet is that it be classless. From this meta-perspective (if such, of course, such a perspective were possible), we could then ascertain “how well” these different social orders hold up. (How we would assess them would be question-begging, of course, but we may stumble upon a criterion somehow or other.)

4. Let me return to the sort of society I favor, the one that’s grounded in religion and, in particular, in the perennial nondual teaching. This, I think, is where Patrick Deneen (see Regime Change) and Michael Lind (see The New Class War) miss the mark. Both presume that ours is–and presumably must be–a culture that’s dominated by ‘the political,’ with the result that Deneen, for instance, can only grasp what he terms “a mixed constitution” as being one in which the new elites are political agents working on behalf of the many (the laborers) for the sake of the common good. I don’t deny that this is an admirable picture, but I do say that it’s question-begging. For it begins the question as to what sort of society is possible, let alone normative; it obviously leaves out the possibility of one whose “center and circumference” is religio.

5. Since I’m committed to the view that the point of human life is liberation, I think certain conservatives’ emphasis (e.g., Oren Cass, The Once and Future Worker) on dignified work, good families, and flourishing communities doesn’t go far enough. What I’d argue for instead would be a religious social order expressing love (the common good realized) and knowledge (liberation [moksha] realizable and, in some cases, realized). In this sense, I’m basically sympathetic to, and so moving in step with, Rene Guenon whose discussions of traditional civilizations from many books, including An Introduction to Hindu Doctrine and Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta, seem to me to be, at least, sublimely beautiful.

6. Is what I’ve briefly described feasible today? Unlikely “at scale,” but then small is beautiful, I’ve heard it said.